Charles Krauthammer Quotes

The United Nations charter gives every nation the right to self defence, therefore when the American embassies were bombed it was a matter of time before the Americans responded by going for what they suspected were the causes of the attack.

Most recently, terrorist forces have captured Israeli soldiers and fired rockets into Israeli cities - both unprovoked. These acts of aggression deserve the rapid and decisive response they received.

International law seeks to avoid the use of force but does not preclude it.

The preemptive use of force has always been part of international law.

Every nation has a right and duty to defend itself against unjust aggression. Offensive war of any kind is not morally justifiable.

Pre-emptive war might fall within the framework of international law.

Send Iran a clear message that if we are assaulted, we will meet it and trump it.

All I can say is we will fully utilise our right to self-defence. No one can just do what they want on our borders.

I believe in not attacking a country pre-emptively unless you're sure of what you're doing and you're working with allies.

This resolution simply says Israel has the right to defend itself. This includes conducting operations both inside its borders and in the territory of nations that threaten it, which is in accordance with international law.

The Liberals have been pressing for the brief on the basis of which he said there was authority for war.

If there is no direct threat why are we invading?

As soon as one nation claims the right to take preventive action, other countries will naturally do the same. If we go down that road, where are we going?

I have always thought that Israel, as an independent and sovereign nation, had a right to defend itself.

If Pakistan has any ideas of annexing any part of our territories by force, she should think afresh. I want to state categorically that force will be met with force and aggression against us will never be allowed to succeed.

Today, war of necessity is used by critics of military action to describe unavoidable response to an attack like that on Pearl Harbor that led to our prompt, official declaration of war, while they characterize as unwise wars of choice the wars in Korea, Vietnam and the current war in Iraq.

If our interests - our legitimate interests, the interests of Russians - have been attacked directly, like they were in South Ossetia, for example, I do not see any other way but to respond in accordance with international law.

Anyone who considers using a weapon of mass destruction against the United States or its allies must first consider the consequences... We would not specify in advance what our response would be, but it would be both overwhelming and devastating.

If America has the right to target Osama bin Laden, or terrorists, of course Israel has the right to defend itself from terrorism.

There are only two cases in which war is just: first, in order to resist the aggression of an enemy, and second, in order to help an ally who has been attacked.

The United States was an innocent victim after September 11. It had never attacked or occupied Afghanistan. So therefore it had no choice but to go after the aggressors.

We believe the use of force against Iraq, especially with reference to previous resolutions of the UN Security Council, has no grounds, including legal grounds.

So the first thing that went on was to decide... trying to find a time when we could get reprisal raids out.

Why are we going after those who were not going after us?

Formerly, a nation that broke the peace did not trouble to try and prove to the world that it was done solely from higher motives…Now war has a bad conscience. Now every nation assures us that it is bleeding for a human cause, the fate of which hangs in the balance of its victory…No nation dares to admit the guilt of blood before the world.